Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Time intervals between semen production, initiation of analysis, and IUI significantly influence clinical pregnancies and live births

  • Assisted Reproduction Technologies
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Does IDEF mapping help monitor the technical process of IUI and explore the potential improvements which might contribute to increased pregnancy and live birth rates?

Method

Retrospective analysis of 1729 homologous IUI cycles of couples attending a fertility clinic in a university hospital setting. Standardized conventional semen parameters were analyzed and the semen samples prepared via discontinuous density gradient centrifugation.

Results

There was no significant association between sperm concentration, motility and morphology (analysis phase), and pregnancy outcome. Only female and male ages were significantly associated with the pregnancy outcome. There was a significant difference in the odds on clinical pregnancies and live births when analysis was ≤ 21 min initiated, and < 107 min between sample production and IUI, adjusted for male and female age.

Conclusions

Adjusting for the couple’s age, we could show that time intervals between semen production and analysis and IUI when kept low significantly influenced clinical pregnancies and live births.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ombelet W, Puttemans P, Bosmans E. Intrauterine insemination: a first-step procedure in the algorithm of male subfertility treatment. Hum Reprod. 1995;10 Suppl 1:90–102.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Duran HE, Morshedi M, Kruger T, Oehninger S. Intrauterine insemination: a systematic review on determinants of success. Hum Reprod Update. 2002;8:373–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Goverde AJ, McDonnell J, Vermeiden JP, Schats R, Rutten FF, Schoemaker J. Intrauterine insemination or in-vitro fertilisation in idiopathic subfertility and male subfertility: a randomised trial and cost-effectiveness analysis. Lancet. 2000;355:13–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cohlen BJ, te Velde ER, van Kooij RJ, Looman CW, Habbema JD. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and intrauterine insemination for treating male subfertility: a controlled study. Hum Reprod. 1998;13:1553–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Khalil MR, Rasmussen PE, Erb K, Laursen SB, Rex S, Westergaard LG. Intrauterine insemination with donor semen. An evaluation of prognostic factors based on a review of 1131 cycles. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2001;80:342–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tomlinson MJ, Amissah-Arthur JB, Thompson KA, Kasraie JL, Bentick B. Prognostic indicators for intrauterine insemination (IUI): statistical model for IUI success. Hum Reprod. 1996;11:1892–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ragni G, Maggioni P, Guermandi E, Testa A, Baroni E, Colombo M, et al. Efficacy of double intrauterine insemination in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation cycles. Fertil Steril. 1999;72:619–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Badawy A, Elnashar A, Eltotongy M. Effect of sperm morphology and number on success of intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:777–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Montanaro Gauci M, Kruger TF, Coetzee K, Smith K, Van Der Merwe JP, Lombard CJ. Stepwise regression analysis to study male and female factors impacting on pregnancy rate in an intrauterine insemination programme. Andrologia. 2001;33:135–41.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Yavuz A, Demirci O, Sozen H, Uludogan M. Predictive factors influencing pregnancy rates after intrauterine insemination. Iran J Reprod Med. 2013;11:227–34.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Zhao Y, Vlahos N, Wyncott D, Petrella C, Garcia J, Zacur H, et al. Impact of semen characteristics on the success of intrauterine insemination. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2004;21:143–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Ombelet W, Vandeput H, Van de Putte G, Cox A, Janssen M, Jacobs P, et al. Intrauterine insemination after ovarian stimulation with clomiphene citrate: predictive potential of inseminating motile count and sperm morphology. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:1458–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Carrell DT, Kuneck PH, Peterson CM, Hatasaka HH, Jones KP, Campbell BF. A randomized, prospective analysis of five sperm preparation techniques before intrauterine insemination of husband sperm. Fertil Steril. 1998;69:122–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sun Y, Li B, Fan LQ, Zhu WB, Chen XJ, Feng JH, et al. Does sperm morphology affect the outcome of intrauterine insemination in patients with normal sperm concentration and motility? Andrologia. 2012;44:299–304.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. van Weert JM, Repping S, Van Voorhis BJ, van der Veen F, Bossuyt PM, Mol BW. Performance of the postwash total motile sperm count as a predictor of pregnancy at the time of intrauterine insemination: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:612–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cohlen B, Bijkerk A, Van der Poel S, Ombelet W. IUI: review and systematic assessment of the evidence that supports global recommendations. Hum Reprod Update. 2018;24:300–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Adamson GD, de Mouzon J, Chambers GM, Zegers-Hochschild F, Mansour R, Ishihara O, et al. International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technology: world report on assisted reproductive technology, 2011. Fertil Steril. 2018;110:1067–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lemmens L, Kos S, Beijer C, Braat DDM, Nelen W, Wetzels AMM. Techniques used for IUI: is it time for a change? Hum Reprod. 2017;32:1835–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. World Health Organization, WHO Laboratory manual for the examination and processing of human semen. 5th ed. Cambridge; 2010.

  20. Bjorndahl L, Barratt CL, Mortimer D, Jouannet P. How to count sperm properly’: checklist for acceptability of studies based on human semen analysis. Hum Reprod. 2016;31:227–32.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. The Vienna consensus: report of an expert meeting on the development of ART laboratory performance indicators. Reprod BioMed Online. 2017;35:494–510.

  22. Punjabi U, Gerris J, van Bijlen J, Delbeke L, Gielis M, Buytaert P. Comparison between different pre-treatment techniques for sperm recovery prior to intrauterine insemination, GIFT or IVF. Hum Reprod. 1990;5:75–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Mortimer D, Mortimer S. Process and systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Punjabi U, De Neubourg D, Van Mulders H, Cassauwers W, Peeters K. Validating semen processing for an intrauterine program should take into consideration the inputs, actions and the outputs of the process. Andrologia. 2018;e12977.

  25. Punjabi U, Spiessens C. Basic semen analysis courses: experience in Belgium. In: Ombelet WBE, Vandeput H, Vereecken A, Renier M, Hoomans E, editors. Modern ART in the 2000’s - andrology in the nineties. London: Parthenon Publishing Group; 1998. p. 107–13.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Bjorndahl L, Barratt CL, Fraser LR, Kvist U, Mortimer D. ESHRE basic semen analysis courses 1995–1999: immediate beneficial effects of standardized training. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:1299–305.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Punjabi U, Wyns C, Mahmoud A, Vernelen K, China B, Verheyen G. Fifteen years of Belgian experience with external quality assessment of semen analysis. Andrology. 2016;4:1084–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Van Waart J, Kruger TF, Lombard CJ, Ombelet W. Predictive value of normal sperm morphology in intrauterine insemination (IUI): a structured literature review. Hum Reprod Update. 2001;7:495–500.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ombelet W, Dhont N, Thijssen A, Bosmans E, Kruger T. Semen quality and prediction of IUI success in male subfertility: a systematic review. Reprod BioMed Online. 2014;28:300–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Mankus EB, Holden AE, Seeker PM, Kampschmidt JC, McLaughlin JE, Schenken RS, et al. Prewash total motile count is a poor predictor of live birth in intrauterine insemination cycles. Fertil Steril. 2019;111:708–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Lemmens L, Kos S, Beijer C, Brinkman JW, van der Horst FA, van den Hoven L, et al. Predictive value of sperm morphology and progressively motile sperm count for pregnancy outcomes in intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:1462–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Campana A, Sakkas D, Stalberg A, Bianchi PG, Comte I, Pache T, et al. Intrauterine insemination: evaluation of the results according to the woman’s age, sperm quality, total sperm count per insemination and life table analysis. Hum Reprod. 1996;11:732–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Stone BA, Vargyas JM, Ringler GE, Stein AL, Marrs RP. Determinants of the outcome of intrauterine insemination: analysis of outcomes of 9963 consecutive cycles. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1999;180:1522–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hendin BN, Falcone T, Hallak J, Nelson DR, Vemullapalli S, Goldberg J, et al. The effect of patient and semen characteristics on live birth rates following intrauterine insemination: a retrospective study. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2000;17:245–52.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Dinelli L, Courbière B, Achard V, Jouve E, Deveze C, Gnisci A, et al. Prognosis factors of pregnancy after intrauterine insemination with the husband’s sperm: conclusions of an analysis of 2,019 cycles. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:994–1000.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Belloc S, Cohen-Bacrie P, Benkhalifa M, Cohen-Bacrie M, De Mouzon J, Hazout A, et al. Effect of maternal and paternal age on pregnancy and miscarriage rates after intrauterine insemination. Reprod BioMed Online. 2008;17:392–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Thijssen A, Creemers A, Van der Elst W, Creemers E, Vandormael E, Dhont N, et al. Predictive value of different covariates influencing pregnancy rate following intrauterine insemination with homologous semen: a prospective cohort study. Reprod BioMed Online. 2017;34:463–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Tatsumi T, Ishida E, Tatsumi K, Okada Y, Saito T, Kubota T, et al. Advanced paternal age alone does not adversely affect pregnancy or live-birth rates or sperm parameters following intrauterine insemination. Reprod Med Biol. 2018;17:459–65.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Horta F, Vollenhoven B, Healey M, Busija L, Catt S, Temple-Smith P. Male ageing is negatively associated with the chance of live birth in IVF/ICSI cycles for idiopathic infertility. Hum Reprod. 2019;34:2523–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Nijs M, Franssen K, Cox A, Wissmann D, Ruis H, Ombelet W. Reprotoxicity of intrauterine insemination and in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer disposables and products: a 4-year survey. Fertil Steril. 2009;92:527–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Pont JC, Patrat C, Fauque P, Camp ML, Gayet V, Wolf JP. Pre-washing catheter dramatically improves the post intrauterine insemination pregnancy rate. Gynecol Obstet Fertil. 2012;40:356–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Yavas Y, Selub MR. Intrauterine insemination (IUI) pregnancy outcome is enhanced by shorter intervals from semen collection to sperm wash, from sperm wash to IUI time, and from semen collection to IUI time. Fertil Steril. 2004;82:1638–47.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Holmes E, Björndahl L, Kvist U. Hypotonic challenge reduces human sperm motility through coiling and folding of the tail. Andrologia. 2020;00:e13859.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Song GJ, Herko R, Lewis V. Location of semen collection and time interval from collection to use for intrauterine insemination. Fertil Steril. 2007;88:1689–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Fauque P, Lehert P, Lamotte M, Bettahar-Lebugle K, Bailly A, Diligent C, et al. Clinical success of intrauterine insemination cycles is affected by the sperm preparation time. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:1618–23.e1–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Hammadeh ME, Strehler E, Zeginiadou T, Rosenbaum P, Schmidt W. Chromatin decondensation of human sperm in vitro and its relation to fertilization rate after ICSI. Arch Androl. 2001;47:83–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Luc Delbeke (past Medical Director, Centre for Reproductive Medicine) and Tina Schiltz, Christine Croes, Els Smet, and Zehra Kara for preparing the semen samples.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Antwerp University Hospital, Wilrijkstraat 10, 2650, Edegem, Belgium

    U. Punjabi, H. Van Mulders, L. Van de Velde, I. Goovaerts, K. Peeters, W. Cassauwers, T. Lyubetska, K. Clasen, P. Janssens, O. Zemtsova & D. De Neubourg

  2. Department of Reproductive Medicine, Antwerp Surgical Training, Anatomy and Research Centre (ASTARC), Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Antwerp, Universiteitsplein 1, 2610, Wilrijk, Belgium

    U. Punjabi, K. Peeters & D. De Neubourg

  3. Clinical Trial Center (CTC), CRC Antwerp, Antwerp University Hospital, University of Antwerp, Wilrijkstraat 10, 2650, Edegem, Belgium

    E. Roelant

Authors
  1. U. Punjabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. H. Van Mulders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L. Van de Velde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. I. Goovaerts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. K. Peeters
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. W. Cassauwers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. T. Lyubetska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. K. Clasen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. P. Janssens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. O. Zemtsova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. E. Roelant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. D. De Neubourg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

U.P. substantially contributed to the conception and design, acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting the article, revising it critically for important intellectual content, and final approval of the version to be published. D.D.N. substantially contributed to the conception, acquisition of data, interpretation of data, revising it critically for important intellectual content, and final approval of the version to be published. E.R. was involved in statistical analysis and interpretation of data, revising it critically for important intellectual content, and final approval of the version to be published. All the other authors conducted additional data acquisition, critical revision of the article, and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to U. Punjabi.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Punjabi, U., Van Mulders, H., Van de Velde, L. et al. Time intervals between semen production, initiation of analysis, and IUI significantly influence clinical pregnancies and live births. J Assist Reprod Genet 38, 421–428 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-02020-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-02020-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation